1st Amendment Thread

[SuburbanFarmer]

The content creators hate the Youtube policy because it actively demonetizes the most controversial videos; but videos that aren't even controversial yet contain the right controversial buzzwords will get demonetized as well. This happens to Rubin a lot from what I can gather by listening to his shows.

Same logic applies to them. You are free to move on to other hosting platforms, and then promote those platforms. You are free to pressure your representatives to try to break up monopolies. You are not free to tell You Tube what is best for You Tube. You are somewhere between an employee and a squatter when you are a content creator for the big red Tube.

Maybe they could pressure their representatives to beef up labor laws protecting free lancers... I don't know, I've got about 3 possible solutions here that don't involve moaning that You Tube is unfair to you because you are just too darn edgy. Get on your bikes content creators, and instead of bitching, be the change you want to see in the world, or whatever.

This works, until a certain media outlet becomes the default media outlet. The barriers to entry are incredibly high for another video-sharing service. It's a de-facto monopoly...

Not arguing against, but there are downsides to this view that should be considered.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The content creators hate the Youtube policy because it actively demonetizes the most controversial videos; but videos that aren't even controversial yet contain the right controversial buzzwords will get demonetized as well. This happens to Rubin a lot from what I can gather by listening to his shows.

Same logic applies to them. You are free to move on to other hosting platforms, and then promote those platforms. You are free to pressure your representatives to try to break up monopolies. You are not free to tell You Tube what is best for You Tube. You are somewhere between an employee and a squatter when you are a content creator for the big red Tube.

Maybe they could pressure their representatives to beef up labor laws protecting free lancers... I don't know, I've got about 3 possible solutions here that don't involve moaning that You Tube is unfair to you because you are just too darn edgy. Get on your bikes content creators, and instead of bitching, be the change you want to see in the world, or whatever.

This works, until a certain media outlet becomes the default media outlet. The barriers to entry are incredibly high for another video-sharing service. It's a de-facto monopoly...

Not arguing against, but there are downsides to this view that should be considered.

Then I would recommend all those content creators should stop wasting their creative energy on fretting over miscegenation or transsexuals, and start convincing their audience of the importance reinvigorating our anti-trust laws.

Then, there will be some fantastic opportunities for disrupting the You Tube paradigm for someone with gumption, race hate in their heart, and a drive to make some good old, cold hard American cash.

Win fucking win!

The other option is to beg the government to coerce You Tube into letting you talk a bunch of shit on You Tube's dime.

[Ex-California]

The content creators hate the Youtube policy because it actively demonetizes the most controversial videos; but videos that aren't even controversial yet contain the right controversial buzzwords will get demonetized as well. This happens to Rubin a lot from what I can gather by listening to his shows.

Same logic applies to them. You are free to move on to other hosting platforms, and then promote those platforms. You are free to pressure your representatives to try to break up monopolies. You are not free to tell You Tube what is best for You Tube. You are somewhere between an employee and a squatter when you are a content creator for the big red Tube.

Maybe they could pressure their representatives to beef up labor laws protecting free lancers... I don't know, I've got about 3 possible solutions here that don't involve moaning that You Tube is unfair to you because you are just too darn edgy. Get on your bikes content creators, and instead of bitching, be the change you want to see in the world, or whatever.

And you also have options such as Patreon or direct donations, but as GCF said Youtube is almost the default viewer application.

But then again, Youtube is a private company so they can set policy how they see fit

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

I just watched the "leaked" episode of Game of Thrones and tried to send the link to a friend who's really into that show. Facebook wouldn't allow it.
It's a good one, by the way.
http://newepisodes.me/watch-game-of-thr ... ils-of-war

[Ex-California]

I just watched the "leaked" episode of Game of Thrones and tried to send the link to a friend who's really into that show. Facebook wouldn't allow it.
It's a good one, by the way.
http://newepisodes.me/watch-game-of-thr ... ils-of-war

I'd rather just wait for two days and see it full res

[SuburbanFarmer]

I just watched the "leaked" episode of Game of Thrones and tried to send the link to a friend who's really into that show. Facebook wouldn't allow it.
It's a good one, by the way.
http://newepisodes.me/watch-game-of-thr ... ils-of-war

I'd rather just wait for two days and see it full res

Same.

[apeman]

I just watched the "leaked" episode of Game of Thrones and tried to send the link to a friend who's really into that show. Facebook wouldn't allow it.
It's a good one, by the way.
http://newepisodes.me/watch-game-of-thr ... ils-of-war

Thanks, I had trouble finding a good link as a non-HBO peasant

[SuburbanFarmer]

Guess you never know when a river will suddenly drop from 6 inches to 50 feet. Wtf

[Hastur]

Didn't know if I should post it here or in the SJW thread.

[de officiis]

New York Times Column Calls For End To “Color-Blind Logic” In Defense of Free Speech

I have been writing for years about the rising wave of intolerance for free speech that has swept over Europe and is now reaching our own shores in the United States. Attacks on free speech are increasing from the left which has cracked down on speech deemed offensive or intimidating to any group. Thus far, the United States has been a bulwark against this trend, but an editorial in the New York Times this week is a chilling example of how voices against free speech are now becoming mainstream. The editorial was written by K-Sue Park is a housing attorney and the Critical Race Studies fellow at the U.C.L.A. School of Law. Park criticizes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for what she views as blind fealty to free speech and suggests that it is time to stop defending Nazis because sometimes standing on the wrong side of history in defense of a cause you think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history. Of course, many of us believe that the wrong side of history is the side where free speech depends on what you want to say — and whether people like Park agree with it.

Park chastises the ACLU that “y insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes. More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.” Park’s disdain for “colorblind logic” is unfortunately increasingly common among university professors who are abandoning core principles of free speech and association to achieve their goals for social advancement and “real freedom.” It appears that “real freedom” for Park is found somewhere without true free speech.